Unanswered plot questions at the end **spoilers**
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Under Suspicion
marty-133 — 18 years ago(December 14, 2007 04:52 PM)
Ok, I understand the "destruction" of Henry by being discarded and thought of as a guilty pervert and murderer by those that he either loves or respects.
Plot wise I am at a loss to either explain:
(a) who the murderer is
(b) how the damning photos got in Henry's house*
*Some people may suggest that Henry took the pictures himself, but it is highly unlikely that he just happened to have photographed the exact same girls that were murdered. The odds are against this explination. If he did in fact take the pictures it seems more likely that the murderer was then in some way associated with Henry himself. -
codebreaker2001 — 18 years ago(December 16, 2007 06:50 AM)
- It doesn't matter who the murderer is. The murderer is not important to the plot. The murderer is just a red herring, even though his murders are important to it.
- If you pay attention, he has multiple boxes of photos (each indicating seperate locations and topics). As odd as it may seem, it is possible that he took the pictures and that the girls in those pictures were coincidentally murdered. The world is a strange place and things that seem unlikely to happen do tend to happen. Just because he took the pictures of the girls who were murdered doesn't mean he did it or had any involvement. Think of it like this: It'd be like you taking the picture of a building with two cars crashing in front of it at that moment. You were only taking a photo and didn't intend on getting the cars crashing. You had no involvement with the drivers. None of them intended on wrecking their cars at that moment. It'd be just a heavy coincidence. The same can be said about Henry, the photoes and the girls. All he did was take the picture. It may seem unlikely, but it is possible.
But this one's eating my popcorn!
-
vakfly123 — 18 years ago(January 20, 2008 11:21 PM)
the way i understood this movie is like this:
Monica Bellucci's character had framed Gene Hackman with the pictures, and hired a killer to carry out the acts. The reason for this belief is that Hackman says when Freeman shows him the photographs "I cant believe she took it this far." The reason Monica spits at the glass is because she realized that he truly loves her and was willing to take on the murder rap instead of putting her under the gun. Thats why at the end she rushes to him but he simply walks by her and sits down on the bench. Just my take on the movie. -
cartman_1337 — 10 years ago(May 29, 2015 03:33 PM)
Only if either
a. the police found any reason to suspect her of being implicated, which, based on their behavior throughout the movie, would be very unlikely, also because she gave them very little reason to suspect her, with all her actions towards the police being quite reasonable.
b. she confesses to it herself, which is even more unlikely.
or
c. Hackman's character accuses her of being implicated, which is also unlikely because he just showed he still loves her so much he was willing to take the rap for her crime. -
BigLaRusso — 11 years ago(July 30, 2014 03:17 PM)
This is what it means
How others think anything else is beyond me
He confesses because shes set him up so well
Freeman stares at them at the end as he cant believe this has happened between them and is gobsmacked -
MickLucifer — 18 years ago(January 22, 2008 05:44 PM)
I've only just seen the movie (last night), but personally I like the idea that the agendas of the main characters, and their perceptions of each other - right and wrong - are what corrupt the ending. And ending that sees their personal lives serve as a circumstantial distraction throughout the entirety of the case/film.
I like the notion that the connection between Henry and Chantal, at the end of the movie, is indicative of revelations felt by both Hackman and Belluci's characters. That their assumptions of each other were wrong.
For [Hackman]; he believes his wife to regard him with such contempt that she will do everything she can to help the police bring him down, regardless of his innocence.
For [Belluci]; she believes her husband is innocent, and is protective enough to quickly orchestrate the framing of another man to clear her husband's name.
The revelations for both characters come almost simultaneously.
Henry, believeing himself cornered, confesses to his crimes and reveals his guilt. Chantal, having framed another man, earns her husband's freedom, revealing that she does indeed love him. -
jgain — 18 years ago(February 01, 2008 02:36 PM)
I can't believe all of the wild interpretations of this movie. To answer your questions first:
a) The murderer is some random lunatic that we never see. He is not related, involved, or known to any of the characters in the movie.
b) The photos aren't "damning". If you recall, Hackman, had literally tens of thousands of photos in his home. Photography was his hobby. So much so that he had a darkroom in his house. And he was very interested in the culture and history of the island. So it is hardly a coincidence that in these massive amounts of photos, he had one of the dead girls. And it was a pic of them playing on a normal day.
When the real killer is arrested, he has photos in his car of the two girls DEAD and is in the process of killing a third girl (caught in the act!) This killer had nothing to do with Hackman, his wife, or Freeman. The whole point of the movie is the fact that Henry is "under suspicion" because of the wreck that is his life. He is innocent, his wife is innocent and she never tried to frame him. Towards the end, she was doubting him, and the psychological pressure actually made Henry think that he did it. Since his wife, and his best friend were telling him that he did it, and continued for hours, he broke down and decided that he MUST have done it.
A very interesting flick, but I can't believe so many people get the plot wrong.. -
spamsickle — 18 years ago(February 24, 2008 02:56 PM)
I agree with you, the creative interpretations of the events given by others just don't make a lot of sense.
He confesses because he's psychologically whipped by his wife's betrayal, her lack of trust in him, as shown by her leading them to his photographs. He really no longer gives a damn.
She spits because, at that moment, she really does believe he's guilty.
The real killer was found almost by chance, a "deus ex machina" that clears Harry completely, but leaves him with all the intrusive prying into his private life by his old friend and young wife.
I enjoyed this movie. I've "sort of" seen it a couple of times, meaning, it's been on TV, and I've tuned in somewhere in the middle. I need to rent it and spend some time with it from the beginning. -
CmdrCody — 18 years ago(February 24, 2008 04:09 PM)
I agree with our eloquent friends, Igain and codebreaker.
There are a lot of "wild" theories spun by posters as to what the movie is about. The murder mystery part is really secondaryit's a means to drive the main character "Hearst" into a deep psychological pit which sheds every last ounce of his outer "shell" (his bravado, his trappings of wealth and power, even his toupe'). The movie is a telling of that deep descentthe rich, wise-cracking uber-lawyer at the beginning to the psychologically spent man at the end.
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
HE is completely innocent. His wife is completely innocent. They didn't do anything. Hearst did find the body of the dead girl after the dog found her off the path. He did act a little stupid in not calling the police immediately. Yes, he did photograph her along with several hundreds of other photos, his hobbya total coincidence. Yes, he did hang with hookers in La Pearla and lied about thatnot the crime he was accused of.
The movie is a cautionary tale of what can happen if you are arrested in the US, accused of serious crime and don't get an attorney to help you immediately. As we know, Hearst felt HE didn't need a lawyer since he was one himselfand became a fool for a client.
Thanks for reading my comments.
CmdrCody -
dandare007 — 18 years ago(February 28, 2008 03:18 PM)
I thought that Gene Hackman believed Monica Bellucci had killed the girls because of his acquaintence with them - hence all the clues about her insane jealousy. He starts confessing at the end to protect her, but the twist is that they're both innocent.
Though you're fed up, throw your head up. -
Guamley — 17 years ago(January 16, 2009 02:12 PM)
"Ok, I understand the "destruction" of Henry by being discarded and thought of as a guilty pervert and murderer by those that he either loves or respects.
Plot wise I am at a loss to either explain:
(a) who the murderer is
(b) how the damning photos got in Henry's house*"
(a) The murderer is explained pretty clearly near the end when the police woman tells the Capt. they had the guy downstairs, shows him photos of the dead girls found in his car (now they were damning photos, unlike the ones Hackman had), and caught him in the act killing a third girl.
The identity of the murderer is unimportant, the fact that Hackman wasn't is whats important.
(b) As I said, Hackmans photos were not damning.
Photography was his hobby and he had thousands of pictures, plus he liked children (in a normal way) so he had pictures of them.
This was not a difficult movie to follow or deconstuct like for instance Deja-vu or 12 Monkeys.